Australian Members - Part II - if you read the first post, you'll get what this is all about.

[Coxsackie]

I'm enjoying the to-and-fro here. High quality, considered debate. I tend to be more on Matt's side, but actually the two of you are not that far apart (although you seem to think you are contradicting each other).

Both of you appear to recognise the truth of the Sapir-Worf (sp?) Hypothesis - which of course is the underpinning of Orwell's concept of Newspeak - but you are twisting it around in different ways.

What neither of you have addressed - perhaps because it's so obvious - is that public speech is quite a different animal from private conversation. Both Eddie Maguire and Steve Price were on public free-to-air television - and presumably being paid to appear there - when they made the comments to which others have objected.

The standard to which public speech should be held is much higher than that of private conversation. Price seems to think this is not so, as he appears to be defending his "mate" on the basis that the offending comments were just idle locker-room banter. They were most certainly not. Both Maguire and Price are seasoned celebrities with several decades of experience, which makes their recent outbursts all the more reprehensible.

 

[cemi1988]

What neither of you have addressed - perhaps because it's so obvious - is that public speech is quite a different animal from private conversation. Both Eddie Maguire and Steve Price were on public free-to-air television - and presumably being paid to appear there - when they made the comments to which others have objected.

The standard to which public speech should be held is much higher than that of private conversation. Price seems to think this is not so, as he appears to be defending his "mate" on the basis that the offending comments were just idle locker-room banter. They were most certainly not. Both Maguire and Price are seasoned celebrities with several decades of experience, which makes their recent outbursts all the more reprehensible.

no disrespect but the comments made by mcguire were made on triple m radio and not on public free-to-air-television which would be watched by a far broader audience. triple m footy's selling point is its 'locker room' culture - anyone who listens to it on a regular basis would know this.

save that mcguire's particular comments related to a female journalist in this particular instance, they were not unique or out of keeping with the show's context. insults are regularly traded amongst the presenters as well as other football media personalities. one need look no further than exchanges between damian barrett and danny frawley.

admittedly this particular insult was in poor taste and mcguire has an innate ability to put his foot in his mouth.

that said interested parties, who in many cases had not even heard the comments, have seized on them to fuel debate, which has had the obvious byproduct of creating conflict and actually generating legitimate hate speech.

i think there are far more productive ways of reducing the legitimate problem of domestic violence, in particular violence against women, than hanging mcguire out to dry for these comments.

 

[DartagnanRed]

What neither of you have addressed - perhaps because it's so obvious - is that public speech is quite a different animal from private conversation. The standard to which public speech should be held is much higher than that of private conversation.

I'm not sure whether I agree with this. There are certain negative implications that come from condemning certain aspects or types of speech to private conversations only. In fact, this could be interpreted as a form of censorship. It's also a bit arbitrary, what speech is to be deemed of sufficient standard for public discourse? Maybe it should be up to the listener to decide what speech they deem "correct" or "high standard" rather than assume some sort of standard.

Price seems to think this is not so, as he appears to be defending his "mate" on the basis that the offending comments were just idle locker-room banter. They were most certainly not. Both Maguire and Price are seasoned celebrities with several decades of experience, which makes their recent outbursts all the more reprehensible.

This may be true, but in my opinion Maguire is only guilty of being crass or immature. I truly believe it is ludicrous to accuse him of supporting or feeding into domestic violence and I can't believe this is the dominant opinion that's just accepted by otherwise intelligent people. I also believe that Price's comments to Van Badham were in no way sexist, and again find it surprising that the dominant opinion is otherwise. That's not to say I agree with what he said, or that I like him, or agree with anything he says, or that I disagree with what Van Badham says. It's frustrating having to qualify everything like this, but I find that opinions like mine just get lumped together with all the "right wingers" and "conservatives" and easily dismissed.

 

[Coxsackie]

Radio is just television with your eyes shut.

And the Triple-M footy show is radio with your brain shut.

That's still no excuse. Maguire should be made to suffer as much as possible - he's an appalling broadcaster. If his media career ended tomorrow the world would be a far better place.

You will note that I have chosen my words carefully so as not to malign him personally. He may be a wonderful, warm-hearted individual who cares for his mother.

 

[Coxsackie]

I also believe that Price's comments to Van Badham were in no way sexist, and again find it surprising that the dominant opinion is otherwise.

Price referred to VB, or her comments, as "hysterical". Hysteria is a pseudo-scientific diagnostic term popularised by the comprehensively discredited writings of one Sigmund Freud. Freud applied the term only to females. It is an inherently deeply sexist term.

As to your other comments, they inevitably lead to the absurd conclusion that nobody should ever be held to account for anything they say in public, ever. I reject that.

 

[cemi1988]

i don't agree, but the main point was that you hadn't in fact listened to the comments or turned your mind to their context before forming a view on them.

 

[Coxsackie]

I think the thread is being trolled by Eddie's Army now.

 

[DartagnanRed]

Price referred to VB, or her comments, as "hysterical". Hysteria is a pseudo-scientific diagnostic term popularised by the comprehensively discredited writings of one Sigmund Freud. Freud applied the term only to females. It is an inherently deeply sexist term.

No, this is incorrect. I can't believe I am referring to a dictionary, but this is the easiest way to demonstrate why this is not necessarily true. There are 6 different meanings here alone, and dictionaries don't capture the context of someone saying something. Hysteria CAN BE a pseudo-scientific diagnostic term popularised by the comprehensively discredited writings of one Sigmund Freud. Freud applied the term only to females. It also CAN BE a deeply sexist term. It can also be:

adjective

1.​

of, relating to, or characterized by hysteria.​

2.​

uncontrollably emotional.​

3.​

irrational from fear, emotion, or an emotional shock.​

4.​

causing hysteria.​

5.​

suffering from or subject to hysteria.​

6.​

causing unrestrained laughter; very funny:
Oh, that joke is hysterical!​

I note that the above definitions do not specifically capture your definition, which is absolutely legitimate, depending on the context in which it is used.

See Coxie, this is my point entirely, you are applying your own interpretation to Steve's Price use of the word. You may well have decided that because Steve Price is part of the mainstream white talkback media, that he mean to denigrate Van Badham for being a woman. But, you have no proof of this, indeed Price specifically said that he would have used the same term if Van Badham was a man and he was referring to specifically definition number 2, which he may have been incorrect on. You (and most of the media) have decided that was he said was sexist, even if he had no intention (consciously or unconsciously) of being sexist. Either you believe Price actually did intend to be sexist, or you have completely divorced language from intent. Unless you have proof or good reason to believe Price was being sexist, the best you can do is tell him he probably should have avoided using a loaded word just for reasons of courtesy, in the same way that white people might say the word *****r under their breath when singing song lyrics, or wizards avoid saying Voldemort.

Consider the scenario in which I accuse Price of referring to Van Badham as hysterical, meaning "causing unrestrained laughter; very funny". This would be just as legitimate as accusing him of being sexist, and equally incorrect because I am ignoring context and intent.

As to your other comments, they inevitably lead to the absurd conclusion that nobody should ever be held to account for anything they say in public, ever. I reject that.

Again, incorrect, I did not say that. But it depends on what you mean by "held to account". If you mean others should be able to call out bad ideas and speech in the marketplace of ideas, yes I agree. If you mean people deemed of not meeting the "standard" of speech should be forced to make public apologies for things that they didn't even do, then no I do not agree. We all know Maguire didn't intend to be violent, we all know he didn't apologise for his actions thinking he had made a mistake, he just had to do so to save face in this strange world we live in. If someone were inciting violence, then this would be a different matter, and perhaps invite some sort of censorship.

 

[akclothpooper]

@md2010 looking like Haider Ackermann with the suede jacket and scarf (IMO a very good thing).
Anyone check out Eidos' new collection? Looks very breezy, like the pants on the women's side (the men's are probably detailed similarly but hard to make out, also love the abundance of drawstrings).

 

[Coxsackie]

No, this is incorrect. I can't believe I am referring to a dictionary, but this is the easiest way to demonstrate why this is not necessarily true. There are 6 different meanings here alone, and dictionaries don't capture the context of someone saying something. Hysteria CAN BE a pseudo-scientific diagnostic term popularised by the comprehensively discredited writings of one Sigmund Freud. Freud applied the term only to females. It also CAN BE a deeply sexist term. It can also be:

adjective

1.​

of, relating to, or characterized by hysteria.​

2.​

uncontrollably emotional.​

3.​

irrational from fear, emotion, or an emotional shock.​

4.​

causing hysteria.​

5.​

suffering from or subject to hysteria.​

6.​

causing unrestrained laughter; very funny:
Oh, that joke is hysterical!​

I note that the above definitions do not specifically capture your definition, which is absolutely legitimate, depending on the context in which it is used.

See Coxie, this is my point entirely, you are applying your own interpretation to Steve's Price use of the word. You may well have decided that because Steve Price is part of the mainstream white talkback media, that he mean to denigrate Van Badham for being a woman. But, you have no proof of this, indeed Price specifically said that he would have used the same term if Van Badham was a man and he was referring to specifically definition number 2, which he may have been incorrect on. You (and most of the media) have decided that was he said was sexist, even if he had no intention (consciously or unconsciously) of being sexist. Either you believe Price actually did intend to be sexist, or you have completely divorced language from intent. Unless you have proof or good reason to believe Price was being sexist, the best you can do is tell him he probably should have avoided using a loaded word just for reasons of courtesy, in the same way that white people might say the word *****r under their breath when singing song lyrics, or wizards avoid saying Voldemort.

Consider the scenario in which I accuse Price of referring to Van Badham as hysterical, meaning "causing unrestrained laughter; very funny". This would be just as legitimate as accusing him of being sexist, and equally incorrect because I am ignoring context and intent.
Again, incorrect, I did not say that. But it depends on what you mean by "held to account". If you mean others should be able to call out bad ideas and speech in the marketplace of ideas, yes I agree. If you mean people deemed of not meeting the "standard" of speech should be forced to make public apologies for things that they didn't even do, then no I do not agree. We all know Maguire didn't intend to be violent, we all know he didn't apologise for his actions thinking he had made a mistake, he just had to do so to save face in this strange world we live in. If someone were inciting violence, then this would be a different matter, and perhaps invite some sort of censorship.​

Most of your argument I accept. But violence towards women by men (indeed, violence towards people by people, but let's put that broader subject aside for the purposes of this debate) is a very real issue, one which Australian society is in the process of coming to grips with and trying to conquer. It's very much in the public mind, as it should be.

Let's consider for a moment your "N" word example. It's a good example. One hundred years ago, it was just a hillbilly mispronunciation of a Spanish word meaning "black". But it has come to mean something very different. It is generally accepted - well, by most people - that in modern usage, this is a word which demeans and humiliates African-Americans, and as such, it is offensive; those who wilfully use it, collude in some way in the validation and hence perpetuation of anti-black racism. I've been called out on it myself, when I posted a GIF with that word in it on this site, and rightly so.

So here we have Mr Maguire, just being a bit of a lad and a buffoon, getting a bit carried away and cracking what he thought was a harmless joke in exceedingly poor taste. And yes, in a locker room that would be fine - sort of. Actually not even in a locker room. Because in that locker room, all the "good ole boys" would laugh and high-five each other, and their overall mindset might just slip a little further away from the renunciation of violence towards women.

The problem here is that feeble-minded individuals are easily influenced. Whether it's the Footy Show or the Science Show or the Hour of Worship, it's public broadcasting. It doesn't matter whether any women were listening. It's not about offending an audience, it's about influencing them. This is why I believe it appropriate that Maguire be "called to account" for his words.

Anyway, my understanding is that he did offer the lady broadcaster - Caroline or Catherine somebody - an apology of sorts, so I guess he's off the hook. Now, if Sam Newman and Steve Price wish to spring to Eddie's defence in general terms by saying "listen people, Eddie's a great guy, what he said was dumb, but he's apologised, OK? So let it go." - well, that's fine. But for them to start characterising the public abhorrence of Eddie's remarks as hysterical overreaction - sorry but no, I can't stomach that.

 

[Prince of Paisley]

 

[cemi1988]

deleted

 

[LonerMatt]

Enjoying the conversation lads - don't have much to respond with, but might type a little up. DR pointed out some good flaws in my points.

 

[Coxsackie]

It's been fun, but I'm all done. Back to clothes. Or failed coups d'état in Turkey. WTF was that all about?

One of my Turkish friends says the whole thing was a setup by Erdogan to shore up his bid to extend his rule beyond the constitutional limits (à la Putin). I dunno - seems a bit far-fetched.

 

[conqueror]

does anyone have any experience with hermen (https://www.hermenmenswear.com)? looking at some trousers for work, although i live in canberra so will be taking a (big) gamble with measurements etc.